I find the cited law professor's argument rather interesting, though someone should have reminded him that apartheid S.Africa was in fact a Western-style democracy (probably even more so than the ANC regime that succeded it) - if for whites only, in much the same way as one could argue that the ANC has governed almost entirely in the interests of its ruling elite, to the exclusion of the vast majority who still live in shacks with no jobs or proper healthcare. He therefore should be ashamed to have raised that argument, as if being a democracy necessarily prevents any regime from committing ghastly atrocities. Indeed, he might wish to ask himself what the kinds of constitutional "guarantees" he refers to have meant for the likes of Private Manning (the alleged WikiLeaks whistleblower who has been routinely tortured in US jail, with limited due process rights, etc), or indeed, for the inmates of Guantanamo Bay.

South African "apartheid" was never a "Western-style democracy." The government structure and its laws were made locally by European emigrants who grabbed power and subjugated the existing peoples. Let's remember that there was no real democracy in Africa at the time. Calling that government a "democracy" or "Western" is misleading. And there is very little real democracy in Africa today; it is usually an extension of tribal politics and dominance. An obvious example is Zimbabwe. And South Africa today is not a real democracy if you look beyond simple voting. It is still zero-sum ANC mentality.

Please cite your evidence that Private Manning has been "tortured" (your word). I know you don't have any, but I thought I would ask.

On Apartheid S.Africa: If a parliamentary democracy (with the usual constitutional guarantees - except in this case, for whites only) is not a Western-style democracy, I don't know what is.

On democracy in Africa: I'm not sure why you raised this, because I never suggested that much of Africa was democratic.

On Private Manning: I refer you to the report submitted to the UN's Human Rights Council in February of this year by that body's "Special Rapporteur on Torture..." Juan Mendez who spent 11 months investigating the matter - though I suspect even this won't change your mind. Alas, I'm not in a position to get the US authorities to admit that they have in fact tortured him, which seems to be the only evidence you'd be willing to accept.

Initially the TV video of the miners clearly showed them armed with spears, machetes and clubs rushing the police line. After a day or so that video was replaced on TV with a more "politically correct" edited version which did not contain the armed mob in quite the same detail. I wonder why? Many of the police shown firing were themselves not white. In any event, if you arm yourself and rush a police line you have only yourself to blame.

Professor de Vos is quite wrong, of course. The Nazis were also democratically elected, but it took WW2 to remove them from power. The ANC government is politely referred to as a liberation movement, but we all know what happens when former liberation movements are defeated at the polls (Zimbabwe, Kenya etc.)

The real question is this: Why the international double standards? Is it acceptable for a black government to kill fellow blacks, but not when a white government did so in 1960? Why not calls for sanctions and sporting isolation against the current SA regime, like there were against the old regime.

Well, this was bound to happen, wasn't it? Sooner than later. For if the ANC had began by emulating the worst aspects of African leadership (from grand corruption to nepotism to wilful misrule, and much else in between), the state-sponsored brutality wasn't going to be too far behind, was it?

But where is the outraged indignation from other African governments? Why aren't our other rulers calling for sanctions? Why the silence in our media? Where are the labour unions across Africa - why aren't they showing their solidarity, at least? I ask because if a white man had done this to our people, we would, quite rightly, have been on the airwaves denouncing that regime, at the very least.

Which makes it all the more shocking, NONFERROUS. And reinforces my evolving belief: that societies probably deserve the leadership they get. For if you believe that subjecting your leader to ridicule (based on concrete facts, as it happens) is more outrageous than his government's massacre of so many of his fellow citizens, that says quite a lot about you as a society. Add to this their obstinate support for the ANC regime (in spite of the breathtaking levels of corruption, nepotism and wilful misrule), and you can begin to see why the future doesn't look as good as we all expected back in the early 1990s when apartheid was overthrown.

It sounds like the growingpains from any wealthy country's past. That does not make it easier for the people nor less dangerous for the country. It is, however, what one would expect to see happen all over the world, as it grows richer. We seem to have problems in organising the process.

It makes me think back to the dispute a while back, of which I cannot remember the name, but where the protesters blocked access to hospitals and threatened those health care workers that did turn up.

I like my country but, two things:

1) Protests and strikers here have a vicious sense of entitlement. They constantly demand more without productivity increases. They also get obnoxious and break laws if they don't get their way. I for one believe the police self-defense argument purely on plausibility when it comes to who they were dealing with.

2) I know we have, and should have, free speech, but could someone mussle that bloody clown (Malema). He runs around inflaming opinion and throwing muck anywhere he can. I don't think that he should be shut up for disagreeing with people, but because the way he does it is just ... stupid.

Deathista: Wrong on both counts, I'm afraid. On the miners, you can't be a democracy and a murderous regime at the same time. If you are the former, you ought to have established ways of dealing with even the most "vicious" demonstrators - teargas, water cannons, etc. Murdering people in the streets is inexcusable.

On Malema, I've made the point on these pages before, that the only justification for giving legal protection to free speech is the right to say offensive things. If it was about the right to say things we all agree with, why would you need any legal guarantees? I therefore don't believe he should be "[muzzled]". If you believe his views are inciteful, prosecute him under the law. If only obnoxious and offensive, that's a problem for those who listen to him and take him seriously, not for anyone else.

Let's be fair, NONFERROUS: Saddam and bin-Laden were caught in hiding, having urged their followers to fight to their death (and I hope I'm not unwittingly comparing Malema to either person). So, let's not single Malema out in that regard.

Africa is a violent place. Always has been and always will be. Murder and rape in South Africa are widespread. Victims often have their eyes gouged in the most egregious attacks to prevent identification in a police line up. Nobody there is sitting in a circle doing Ubuntu - you can leave that to Al Gore and some software programmers. And nobody is sitting in a circle singing Kumbaya either.

I honestly feel sorry for these people/strikers and they have genuine grievances not to mention being sold out by the black political class (Cyril Ramaposa as I understand it is connected to the Board of this company - how perfectly ironic). But the police are poorly paid and do a dangerous job too. This is not like policing in New Zealand or something where a homicide detective will deal with a few major cases in his career. This is on a par with policing in Mexico and Colombia. It is tough, it is hard to stay straight, and it is poorly paid. Policemen and policewomen are conditioned to violence. It is a violent world. Many policemen and policewomen with families and children die everyday in incidents unreported in the wider media. The police in this case are not the enemy. They got sent to do a job which was control the situation, and from what I have observed, in Africa when a whipped up mob comes at you with clubs and machetes etc. you would deserve the Darwin award for understating the threat. Look at Rwanda and Kenya for recent examples. People running around in fit of temper with clubs and machetes bear ill-will and mean violence. If they get to you, there will be blood and it will be yours. It is easy to criticize in front of a computer with your mouse in one hand and something else in the other. Put yourself in their shoes.

These strikers need to learn that nothing is ever gained from violence and they need to arrive at protests minus the spears, machetes, clubs and whatever else. Bearing these weapons indicates intent to do grievous bodily harm to someone. It would mean that in any other civilized country and it should mean that in South Africa too. And screw tradition and African culture. If you go far back enough in any culture, people arrived at disputes armed. But things have moved on. Imagine if a Japanese protestor said he wanted to join the anti-nuclear protest with his Samurai sword because it was tradition. There is no excuse for this, and the SA police acted out of no choice.

Africa is very complex and complete society like any other society anywhere in the world. It has its challenges and strength. To generalize an entire continent as a violent place is simplistic. Your rustic view on this sad event is amazing. The key question, as was during the recent London Riots, is how to redefine the role of Police in an ever-changing world to cope with violent riots?

There is obviously violence here and there and exceptions here and there, but your retort suggests we as human beings cannot (or should not - not sure which one) compare areas and make generalizations about the respective frequencies with which something (like violence) happens. South Africa is complex and Japan is complex, but South Africa is a hundred times more violent than South Africa. That I think is a safe generalization - or do you dispute this generalization and say we should censor such analysis out of our minds? To sacrifice the need to generalize by using trite retorts such as "its complex" when human cognition is based on generalizations and patterns and frequencies (as is science) serves nobody. If you want to dispute the claim/generalization, then make an empirical argument.

As for the rioters in London, they should have been stomped on harder right from the beginning and less innocent people would have suffered. Again, they may have legitimate grievances but that does not mean violence is acceptable. It is never acceptable in a democratic state.

I am a South African who has divided my life between this country and the U.S. for the past 30 years. South Africa has one of the highest rape and murder rates in the world outside of a war zone, extreme xenophobia has meant violent attacks against Africans from other countries seeking refuge here also. I can't speak for the rest of Africa but South Africa certainly is a bloody and brutal place. You would be woefully naive to think otherwise. With regards to the London Riots, the role of police is not the key question at all in relation to these tragedies. The key question is why the protesters in these events have decided that armed violence is the only way to achieve their objectives and are willing to kill police officers in the process.

Murder and rape in SA is centered around the areas with the highest levels of poverty. And, NO, it is not common at all for victims to have their eyes gouged out.

And while I don't think the police were the main culprits, to compare what happened to the Rwanda genocide is just plain ignorant. In Rwanda it was civilian on civilian - in this case the police were armed with guns, gas, batons and shields. There is a history of the riot police coming down way to hard on people protesting for their rights in SA - last year they shot an unarmed high school teacher (Andries Tatane) for just being a part of a service delivery protest, he wasn't threatening anybody. To claim that the police had no other choice is trying to justify the violence you decried in your post.

You make some good points, but leave out the carte blanche and frankly ignorant statements. Let consider them:

"Africa is a violent place. Always has been and always will be." - No - a few countries in Africa are admittedly violent, but many are not. Zambia has very few incidents of violence... road traffic accidents are disease are much bigger killers... rather like New Zealand. What about Botswana, Ghana, Tanzania, Malawi... all peaceful places.

Prior to the arrival of Europeans there was very little violence and "wars" were mostly posturing and dancing... Shaka Zulu was really the first truly violent conqueror and that was in 1820. Reasons: a lot of land a few people, plenty of game to hunt, fruit throughout the year, no harsh winter... why bother fighting or investing energy in building weapons other than for the occasional macho show-off.

"Screw tradition and African culture" - this incident has nothing to do with African Tradition and culture... Labour disputes, Multi-national mining conglomerate, armed police forces... not really part of any African Tradition of culture.

Kenya was held up as the darling example of peaceful Africa until the recent explosion violence. Then that line fell through. The countries you mention may be exceptions, but unfortunately exceptions make the rule.

I think you know very little of African history prior to the arrival of Europeans. Who wiped out most of the San peoples migrating South? Whites? No. Bantu. Revisionary history is bad no matter who it serves.Very quaint bit of revision you have going there.

On your final paragraph, you miss the point. Labor disputes, conglomerates etc. are part of the world that has moved on -along with democracy, a constitution and so. Arriving at a protest armed to the teeth with clubs, machetes and spears is the part which has not. It is not civilized behavior. Period.

Your points could have been made without the sweeping statements. Read it through without the two statements I drew attention to... a reasoned piece of analysis. Why the flippancy, stupidity and ignorance?

And now the statement "I think you know very little of African history prior to the arrival of Europeans"...

I am a Zambian and I have been taught African History since the age of 5. When I came to London to undertake a degree in Economics, I took all my allowed external subjects in African History... including jumping from the LSE to SOAS for some of them. And being a geek, I was a member of the African History Society and attended lectures on the subject outside of my core degree at various UoL centres. I read widely on the subject and got Firsts for all the courses I took.

I have a passion for Africa, her history and her wonderful people, landscapes, flora and fauna!

I don't doubt you have a "passion for Africa, her history and her wonderful people, landscapes, flora and fauna!" and that you did jolly well at university. But that is beside the point. Your personal history has no bearing on the arguments. You implied that Africans, before Europeans arrived, were a friendly lot who simply brandished their weapons in some kind of theatrical display. I dispute that, and I think the facts are on my side. There are paintings by bushmen in your country, Zambia, and also in Zimbabwe and many other places. WHERE ON EARTH DID THESE PEOPLE GO? Forget the Zulu and Shaka. How did the clicks get into the Xhosa language? The Xhosa wiped out the Khoisan (the true aboriginals) as they migrated south taking more and more land (read lebensraum in another era and place), and they took only the virgin girls as prizes for powerful members of their own group. These women had children and thus the clicks in Xhosa. Popularly cited as interaction with the Khoisan, but that is politeness. You don't have to propagate a politeness and fictional representations of history to be a passionate African. Take a cue from Desmond Tutu one of Africa's greatest moral voices. Unlike many black Africans, he adds credibility to his critique of white Africans when he turns his critical eye on black Africans and talks dead straight.

By the way, a Chinese was murdered in a Zambian mine recently in a "protest". But I presume you knew that.

The response was directed at your assertion "I think you know very little of African history prior to the arrival of Europeans"... and now "Your personal history has no bearing on the arguments." It was not to do with the argument, it was a factual refutation of your assertion.

On the topic of the Khoi-San, there is a fair amount of discourse on this, but I think the majority of academic opinion favours the view that disease played a critical role in driving them back to South Africa. It is likely these new diseases were brought by Bantu tribes slowly moving south. That is not the same as waging a genocidal war.

In terms of who wiped them out in South Africa, the final blame for that rests firmly with the Dutch and English Cape settlers. There are some truly horrible accounts of them being hunted for sport. So on that basis alone, the Xhosa cannot be fingered exclusively. There they were in the Cape, and then they were wiped out by the Europeans. This is not a matter of politeness and political correctness, it is a fact. De fact, Europeans are also violent. In fact, very, very, very violent.

Additionally, Africa never produced a Gengis Khan, or Alexander the Great, never built the fortresses and weapons that remain all over the world bar Africa. Surely if you consider Africa to be a wholly violent place, then what about the rest of the world? South Africa is horribly violent, but that should not tarnish an entire continent, particularly when violence is a human condition rather than a purely African one.

My family have been in Africa for hundreds of years, and we have no record of anybody dying violently, except in European Wars.

As for the Chinese man in Zambia, he was apparently brandishing a shotgun. The important point is that the people involved have been arrested and will face trial and that is exactly what needs to take place as regards this incident.

Evidence is gathered, a trial in front of a jury of your peers and from that a judge will provide a sentence should you be found guilty. Just like New Zealand.

" On the topic of the Khoi-San, there is a fair amount of discourse on this, but I think the majority of academic opinion favours the view that disease played a critical role in driving them back to South Africa. It is likely these new diseases were brought by Bantu tribes slowly moving south. That is not the same as waging a genocidal war.

In terms of who wiped them out in South Africa, the final blame for that rests firmly with the Dutch and English Cape settlers. There are some truly horrible accounts of them being hunted for sport. So on that basis alone, the Xhosa cannot be fingered exclusively. There they were in the Cape, and then they were wiped out by the Europeans. This is not a matter of politeness and political correctness, it is a fact. De fact, Europeans are also violent. In fact, very, very, very violent."

On the first paragraph. Sickness cuts your numbers. It does not "drive" you somewhere. Violence does that, if it does not make you completely vanish from the scene before you decide to duck. The Xhosa pushed as far south as the Kei river before meeting whites who were moving up from the south. Above the Kei the KhoiSan disappeared. Below not. Do the math. They dissappeared in your country. COMPLETELY VANISHED?? 100 percent gone. Strange.

Now come again with all your tales of spears and clubs etc. being for theater. Gentle, harmless, funloving people playing drums and dancing around with the fauna. Next post I guess you are going bring Pocahontas into the tale.

The pleasures of reasoned debate... no comment on the violence of Europeans?

The last remnants of the San live mostly in Botswana and Namibia... above the Kei - hence rendering your statement "Above the Kei the KhoiSan disappeared." - factually incorrect.

Disease can decimate a population to such an extent that it is wiped out... it has certainly been seen in the animal and plant kingdom. I think is the primary explanation for the disappearance of the San in what is now Zambia and much of the rest of Southern Africa (along with the impact of the Europeans). I concur the use of the verb drive was misplaced.... it should have said died out in most areas bar the Western Cape and the Kalahari.

I offered an hypothesis that Africans are actually less violent than other members of the human race. You have not dealt with that at all. I thought there was the chance for a quality debate with you - you first post contained some excellent points.

But instead we have Pocahontas? Why would I raise a Disney(fied) North American character in this thread? At least a Lion King character would be from the right continent.

I wish you well and I hope with time you can see through the historical cultural and racial prejudices clouding your thoughts and writings.

Zambino
This is my last comment too.
1. No. When the topic is Africa, it is not automatically obligatory to criticise Europeans. Africans need to learn to be self critical without an auto-Eurobash button.
2. There are many KhoiSan in the Cape.
3. The Kei is neither north nor south of Botswana and Namibia. It does not exist on the Western side. It is a natural boundary for the Eastern Cape and not the whole of South Africa. Check Google maps please.
4. Maybe in the plant and animal kingdom, but all evidence with humans (like the Americas) is that disease does not do this.
5. You offered an hypothesis that Africans (and here I presume/you mean black Africans) are less violent than other members of the human race - say east Asians like the Japanese for example. I disputed that with good argument and a little ridicule. But, sorry, your view of the way Africa was like before the bogeyman European came along is not credible. This kind of fictionalized history is part of Africa's false consciousness.

When South Africa was ruled by the white, we criticized its tyranny and apartheid. When the power was passed to the hands of the black people who are less literate and poorer, we once were hailing for its emerging democracy. But now what it ends up with?
Absolutely populace deserve equal rights, but do they really know whom to be elected to rule the country for them? When I saw Mr. Zuma kissing his third newly-wedded plump wife, I was confused that how could a polygamous emir well operate this country. Obviously this country has been degrading to tribe administration, rather than democracy.

No that is factually incorrect. Anyone who charges armed with a melee weapon is threatening to do grevious bodily harm and the police must stop them. This may include shooting them if a member of the public is endangered. However this would be a last resort given the state's duty to protect life. Those are the constitutional constraints, and South Africa is a constitutional democracy. There is no dispensation that allows for summary execution in the event of a charge with a melee weapon.

Columbo, put yourself in the police's position. 3 days previously 2 policemen were macheted to death, and one was critically injured. 2 guards had been burnt to death. The videos of the even show the strikers firing into the police. The police were scared, justifiably so, and the 'constitutional constraints' you speak of extends to the protection of your own life, be you a member of the SAPS or not.

You cannot redefine a deadly weapon by renaming it a "melee weapon". Your "melee" weapons had already killed police officers recently. Any police officer, any time, anywhere, is perfectly justified to defend himself against a deadly weapon with deadly force.

Almost one hundred police officers get killed in South Africa every year - keep this in mind while reading the following.

In the case of the Marikana tragedy the strikers were already on a killing rampage...days before the incident they killed two on-duty security guards by brutally torturing them (cutting off their jaws and letting them bleed to death). They also killed two police officers by hacking them to pieces using machetes and letting the life drain from them. They killed several fellow mine-workers who did not want to partake in the strike by either shooting them or hacking them to pieces. This mob of strikers was out to torture and kill.

The police could not simply ignore the above and leave this brutal mob alone - they had a duty to act.

The police set up a barricade to keep the mineworkers at bay and they used teargas and water canons to try and stop them - nothing helped and the police was aggressively attacked by a mob of thousands of spear and machete wielding strikers with a lust to kill.

This is a tragedy but please stop blaming the police - they acted bravely and ended up shooting in self-defense.

If you disagree please explain how the police could have avoided having to use maximum force.

It has now been confirmed that the Lonmin rock drill operators actually earn around R10,000 per month before bonuses and around R11,000 including bonuses. An increase of 9% has already been approved before the current unrest, to be implemented on 1 October.

The reported salary of R4,000 per month was based on an interview by one journalist with one miner and then gullibly repeated by many others without any checking of the facts.

The dispute is not about money. The dispute is a turf war between the National Union of Mineworkers and the upstart Association of Mineworkers. The fight is for union fees and political power.
A rockface worker's wage of R11,000 per month may sound small when converted into dollars or pounds but is a very respectable and very liveable wage in South Africa.
The "miners" (if that is who they were) who were interviewed on TV claimed that they could not afford to send their children to school (education is mainly free in the area), nor were the huge raft of benefits that mineworkers receive mentioned.
The strikers' "spokesmen" and uber-idiot Malema, are using the language of the past because they are too thick to develop a new discourse.

As far as I know, nobody in the media has got hold of a rock drill operator's payslip.

Lonmin has been roundly criticised for allowing miners to live in shacks, but it is not clear whether miners have the option of living in a mine house or taking an allowance in lieu of accommodation. If the latter, they may opt to live cheaply in a shack and keep the balance of the allowance. This not far-fetched as it has been reported in the media that people who receive RDP houses have been known to rent out those houses and go back to living in shacks.

I used to work in the squatter camps around the shafts in Rustenburg. Unlike gold mining operations where most miners are housed on-site, the platinum shafts have extremely limited housing and so pay miners a "living out" allowance. This is not a small sum, but housing is expensive in Rustenburg and so most miners choose to live in the squatter camps where living is cheap. The companies should bear some responsibility for the state of the squatter camps since they encourage their growth. In most of the camps the company will provide a water truck a couple days a week but that's about it.

An article in today's Pretoria News bears out the first half of your comment. Apparently, single workers can be accommodated in shared brick houses with electricity and running water. Those who have families in the squatter camps can get a living-out allowance and many choose that option.

My son in law happens to be in the business of supplying quality temporary and semi-permanent full board accommodation. There is no reason for there to be a shortage of affordable accommodation for those who need it.

I would question where a company's responsibility begins and ends with regard to housing. In the days when I was employed, the company didn't care where I lived as long as I did my job. Now that I am self employed, they care even less; I could live in a hole in the ground as far as anyone is concerned.

Just as a point of clarity. The workers had no right to strike or ask for higher wages only because they were already locked into a 2 year wage agreement through their unions. The 2 year wage agreement was due to expire (I believe) in March next year.

The issue at hand here was a struggle between 2 competing unions. It appears one of the unions convinced a significant number of miners that if they switch unions and go on strike they will get triple their pay. Now whether triple their pay is justified is immaterial, the main issue is that if the miners break their union contract, then the mine is able to fire them on the spot (which it would do).

The one union appears to know and understand this - and appears to have made it clear that the rival union was about to spoil it for everyone.

The fighting did not occur between the workers and the mine bosses, but rather a factional fight between rival union supporters that became barbaric and deadly broke out. The police were called into calm the situation .... the rest we know....

People like Julius Malema should also be called to account for the murders,

Instigating the situation and making it more dangerous should be criminal.

But then again crime has a unique and different set of standards in South Africa, particularly considering the view point of people like Pierre de Vos who believe that that murdering 34 in a democratic environment is better than 24 in an apartheid environment.

So, it seems that the reporting was overblown from unions fighting to democracy breaking down. (Defending my post: not saying that South Africa's democracy couldn't be improved, but this incident doesn't seem to be an accurate portrayal of what is actually happening.)

Police have to deal with violent confrontations,but they should do everything possible to avoid killing people. It's a case of training, attitude and maybe a bit of luck. It's far from clear that the police at Marikana tried to avoid bloodshed, although they were undoubtedly provoked.

Incidentally, I don't think the wage demands were an unreasonable negotiating tactic. Miners who do the same dangerous job are paid twice as much in other mines. The problem is that those wage demands are associated with a violent strand of unionism. It looks like violence pays.

Striking and demanding wage increases is all good and fine. Threatening violence and demanding triple your current wages sounds more like extortion and a power grab. I don't know what other mines pay, but these men all agreed to work for that original pay some time in the past, and something between now and then has caused them to need triple the income.

If you strike, it should be the companies right to just fire everyone (for not doing their job) and replace them. This mine could certainly do that, if not for the violent threats of the current workers against the potential replacements.

Something worth mentioning in this article is what exactly the workers are demanding and what they are threatening:
video of the attack (doesn't show the killing)
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19289392]
Clearly shows the armed strikers.
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19286654]
The workers ONLY demanded tripling their wages. And vowed to kill any workers who were hired to replace them. Seems just a smidgen unreasonable to me, and slightly outside 'standard practice' for a 'labor dispute.'

ONLY tripling their wages would put their wages at a meager R12 000 a month (I'm a HUMANITIES major and expect to make ca. R18 000 a month when I graduate, and will likely still receive support from the parents). Considering that these are full time workers, who most likely have family relying on them, not even mentioning the dangerous conditions that they have to work in, I don't think their demands were unjustified at all. Standard practice in a labour dispute is for the wealthy (overseas) capitalists to get away with paying their workers as little as possible, while still declaring completely over the top bonuses for themselves. The fact that the workers said that they'd be willing to kill anyone hired to replace them represents, to me at least, the lack of power that workers have in negotiating with capital.

Humanities major in what country? South Africa? Congrats on your college degree. I highly doubt these mine workers have anything approaching a college degree, not to be mean but taking an educated guess.

The work is dangerous, and yet the workers still agreed sometime in the past to work for those wages in that mine. That is economics. The only reason they need to threaten other workers is that there are other people willing to work for the pay that they are striking over. Other people willing to work for less than R12 000 a month. By that standard, the mine shouldn't have to pay any more than what people are willing to work for. Not what they are willing to kill for.

Basic economics: if the wealthy overseas capitalists didn't offer enough money, no one would work for them! If they can find a better job or start a new company, then they would! Instead they demand TRIPLE their current pay because they are violent and that's why. That's not a lack of power to negotiate, that's a substitution of violence for reason. Reason would suggest you can't fire these workers because no one would take their place for such terrible wages. But reality suggests that plenty of people would take their place. But instead you get violence. Violence because that's how they think they'll get more money.

Yes in South Africa. These mine workers don't have much of an education, but typically workers get compensated for the amount of danger involved in doing the job, as well as for whatever amount of experience they have. Thus, it's not unreasonable to assume that they should be payed more than, or at least as much as, someone with no experience who won't be taking much risk on, even though better educated.

I'm sure that the mine owners could get plenty of illegal Zimbabweans to do the job, many of who would probably accept less than the R4000 currently paid by the mine. I wasn't disputing supply and demand, I was trying to illustrate that the miners' sense of relative deprivation is not unjustified.

SA is *supposed to be* a tri-partheid alliance between labour, capital and government. Through staging violent protests the workers damage SA's image to overseas investors, hopefully prompting government to raise the minimum wage for mine workers.

A theory might explain why something is the way it is, but that doesn't mean that we should accept it as being just, or that those affected by it should accept their lot without complaining or trying to change the system.

how did you get that the companies employees aren't working for them?
The article you site basically says that because South Africa apparently can't enforce the law, Lonmin had better just cave to vicious union members. To hell with that, Lonmins can and should fire the lot of them, and hire another 3,000 replacements, maybe at double the wage JUST to show that lawlessness and violence Does Not Pay.
.
@BAqo42i2dw
Danger deserves to be compensated. But not as much as a degree. But again i wonder why they have worked up to this point with their pay and the danger. Has the danger changed suddenly? I rather doubt it. And my point was you wouldn't need illegals to fill the positions, I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed willing to fill the slots. Feeling underpaid is bad, hacking a policemen or two to death with a machete is worse and deserves punishment. Holding the mine hostage until you get your demands is extortion. Of course investors are put off, a labor dispute is poo-poo'ed in other countries, but a violent standoff between striking employees and the police?
.
Complaining is fine. Take it to the streets, strike with SIGNS and SLOGANS, change the system that way. Everyone might even side with you. But when you arm yourself and threaten and kill? Expect to have guns pointed at you in return.

Think of the long term. Yes, these workers' salaries are low, but they would need to bring up R12,000 plus in platinum per person per month to even think of asking for such a salary. Does every miner do that?

Now, realize that Lonmin needs to protect itself against market forces that can push (and are currently pushing) platinum prices down so that it can survive in the harsh times. It needs to make as much money as it can in the short term so that it can satisfy the expectation of the people who made it possible to give these miners a job in the first place (the investors) and let it reinvest in the future.

Now realize that this reinvestment could be in South Africa, creating more jobs, and pumping more money into the economy. The unfortunate truth is that in developing nations worker oriented governments will never see the innovation, entrepreneurship or growth of a country whose government is business oriented. Look at the tiger economies and check out their minimum wages to see my point.

They realize that the child of the child whose parents earn a minimum wage will earn double the minimum. You can't solve SA's problems by throwing money at the bottom of the pyrimid. Its a long term solution, where you build a society's appreciation of the value of work, education and the rule of law, that will move SA out of its misery.

If a worker has been in the same position for 20 years, will suddenly tripling his wage motivate him? No, but understanding the value of his work will certainly motivate him to encourage his child to try a bit harder in school.

A business is not a charity!

These are basic principles that you should have covered in your BuggerAll degree.